| Literature DB >> 27584149 |
Daniel Bradshaw1,2, Jayna Raghwani3, Brendan Jacka1, Rachel Sacks-Davis4, Francois Lamoury1, Ian Down1, Garrett Prestage1, Tanya L Applegate1, Margaret Hellard4, Joe Sasadeusz5, Gregory J Dore1, Oliver G Pybus3, Gail V Matthews1, Mark Danta6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the potential influence of venue-based networks on HCV transmission in HIV-positive gay and bisexual men (GBM).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27584149 PMCID: PMC5008823 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Comparison of characteristics for HIV-positive GBM with IDU versus sexually acquired acute HCV as determined by the clinician.
| n = 40 | IDU acquisition | Sexual acquisition | All |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 (37.5) | 25 (62.5) | 40 (100) | |
| 37.6 (33.2–46.8) | 46.0 (37.6–46.8) | 45.3 (34.6–49.8) | |
| 13 (86.7) | 19 (76.0) | 32 (80.0) | |
| Sydney | 11 (73.3) | 15 (60.0) | 26 (65.0) |
| 12.9 (7.7–24.4) | 12.2 (7.1–22.4) | 12.7 (7.8–21.3) | |
| 11 (73.3) | 20 (80.0) | 31 (77.5) | |
| 15 (100.0) | 5 (20.0) | 20 (50.0) | |
| >48 ago | 0 | 5 (20.0) | 5 (12.5) |
| >24 and ≤48 ago | 1 (6.7) | 0 | 1 (2.5) |
| > 4 and ≤24 ago | 8 (53.3) | 0 | 8 (20.0) |
| ≤ 4 ago | 6 (40.0) | 0 | 6 (15.0) |
| Less than weekly | 11 (78.6) | NA | x |
| 5 (83.3) | NA | x | |
| Methamphetamine | 13 (86.7) | NA | x |
| 10 (66.7) | 14 (56.0) | 24 (60.0) | |
| Symptomatic | 9 (60.0) | 14 (56.0) | 23 (57.5) |
| Jaundice | 2 (13.3) | 7 (28.0) | 9 (22.5) |
| IDU | 4 (26.7) | 0 | 4 (10.0) |
| Sexual | 11 (73.3) | 25 (100) | 36 (90.0) |
| 5.8 (3.3–6.2) | 5.6 (4.7–6.2) | 5.7 (4.2–6.2) | |
| 8 (53.3) | 17 (68.0) | 25 (62.5) | |
| 5 (33.3) | 6 (24.0) | 11 (27.5) | |
| 2 (13.3) | 2 (8.0) | 4 (10.0) | |
| 1 (6.7) | 2 (8.0) | 3 (7.5) | |
| CD4 cell count, cells/mm3 | 530.0 (319.0–768.0) | 527.0 (387.0–700.0) | 528.5 (351.8–701.0) |
| Number receiving cART | 9 (60.0) | 20 (80.0) | 29 (72.5) |
| No. on cART with HIV RNA <50 IU/mL | 7 (77.8) | 17 (85.0) | 24 (82.8) |
| HBsAg positivity | 1 (6.7) | 0 | 1 (2.5) |
| 81.0 (48.0–417.0) | 149.0 (78.5–466.5) | 134.5 (68.0–451.5) | |
| 8 (53.3) | 10 (40.0) | 18 (45.0) | |
| STI identified | 4 (50.0) | 4 (40.0) | 8 (44.4) |
| 12 (80.0) | 22 (88.0) | 34 (85.0) | |
| Median number of sexual partners | 22 (9–33) | 9 (4–39) | 15 (4–38) |
| Sex exclusively with HIV+ partners | 4 (33.3) | 4 (18.2) | 8 (23.5) |
| Group sex | 10 (83.3) | 14 (63.6) | 24 (70.6) |
| Fisting | 7 (58.3) | 7 (31.8) | 14 (41.2) |
| CRAI | 10 (83.3) | 17 (77.3) | 27 (79.4) |
| CIAI | 9 (75.0) | 13 (59.1) | 22 (64.7) |
| Injecting drugs around the time of sex | 9 (75.0) | 0 | 9 (26.5) |
1, 2 With reference to the six months and one month preceding the study visit, respectively.
3 Drugs were ecstasy, MDMA, methamphetamine, GHB, cocaine, LSD, speed, magic mushrooms or marijuana either ingested, inhaled, or applied per rectum
4 One patient each of genotypes 1b, 2b and 4 (subtype not known); one patient not able to be genotyped due to low HCV RNA level
CRAI or CIAI denote condomless receptive or insertive anal intercourse, respectively
Brackets denote % or IQR.
Fig 1Bayesian time-scaled phylogenies for HCV genotypes 1a and 3a (upper and lower panels respectively). Red and blue denote sequences from this study that were clustered and non-clustered, respectively. Green denotes other Australian sequences within broader transmission lineages. Participants from Sydney and Melbourne are denoted by ‘S’ and ‘M’ respectively. Circles and squares denote sexual and IDU routes of HCV acquisition, respectively. Clusters are denoted by letters A to F, together with the corresponding time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA). The scale bar represents time in years.
Factors associated with membership of a phylogenetic pair or cluster.
| Not in a pair or cluster | Within a pair or cluster | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 (47.4) | 15 (53.6) | - | |
| 45.3 (35.8–49.3) | 44.8 (35.0–50.5) | 0.882 | |
| Melbourne | 1 (6.67) | 10 (76.9) | 0.002 |
| Injection drug | 8 (61.5) | 6 (40.0) | 0.450 |
| Non-injection drug | 6 (46.2) | 8 (53.3) | 0.705 |
| Median no. of sexual partners | 23 (8–44) | 7 (4–25) | 0.122 |
| Condomless receptive anal sex | 8 (72.3) | 11 (78.6) | 1.000 |
| Group sex | 7 (63.6) | 10 (71.4) | 1.000 |
| Fisting | 4 (36.4) | 8 (57.1) | 0.302 |
| 4 (40.0) | 0 | 0.497 | |
| Sexual | 8 (61.5) | 9 (60.0) | 1.000 |
| 1a | 6 (46.2) | 11 (73.3) | 0.246 |
| 8 (61.5) | 7 (46.7) | 0.476 |
1 p<0.05
2 For 25 individuals reporting detailed sexual behaviours within the six months prior to the study visit
3 For 13 individuals undergoing STI testing
Brackets denote % or IQR. Statistical analysis was performed with Mann-Whitney U, Chi-squared or Fishers exact tests.
Fig 2Two-mode network diagrams for Melbourne and Sydney (upper and lower figures respectively). Square boxes denote ‘venues’ used for sourcing sexual partners (I, websites or mobile phone aps; II, sex on premises venues; III, mutual friends; IV, bars or clubs). Circles denote participants from Sydney (S) or Melbourne (M). Colours denote membership of a phylogenetic pair or cluster; grey indicates that the participant is not in a cluster; black indicates that the participant is not included in the phylogeny. Arrows indicate links between participant and venues; participants who provided only generic information about venues used (rather than naming a specific venue) are shown as unlinked.
Association between 1-mode networks and phylogenetic clustering.
| Participants | Jaccard similarity coefficient | Mean | SD | Min | Max | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melbourne | 0.158 | 0.133 | 0.029 | 0.100 | 0.158 | 0.573 |
| Sydney | 0.100 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.000 | 0.222 | 0.168 |
| All | 0.128 | 0.033 | 0.025 | 0.000 | 0.158 | 0.005 |